Crossfire Super AA vs. SLI AA

[kemosabe]

Brandon seems to give the overall nod to ATI with the caveat of the Crossfire platform's inconveniences and immaturity. So will RD580/R580 smooth out the edges? Anyone care to join in a "defy that NDA" orgy?

 

[Moloch]

Brandon seems to give the overall nod to ATI with the caveat of the Crossfire platform's inconveniences and immaturity. So will RD580/R580 smooth out the edges? Anyone care to join in a "defy that NDA" orgy?

well ati def. has the performance advantage, but nvidia does better for alpha textures.. check out the trees in the HL2 sshots.
edit- um what happened to the 16x AA/14X AA?
Same graphs as the 4xaa and 8x aa?

 

[kemosabe]

Right you are - just noticed it while looking closer at the graphs. He reposted the 4x AA/8x AA results twice.

 

[Moloch]

Right you are - just noticed it while looking closer at the graphs. He reposted the 4x AA/8x AA results twice.

Well at techreport you can see the performance of high AA modes.
Xfire 1800XT>sli 512MB gtx.
Looks like that compositing chip is good for something...

 

[compres]

Well at techreport you can see the performance of high AA modes.
Xfire 1800XT>sli 512MB gtx.
Looks like that compositing chip is good for something...

That quite surprizing considering how much more time nVidia has had for tweaking drivers.

 

[trinibwoy]

That quite surprizing considering how much more time nVidia has had for tweaking drivers.

The drivers have nothing to do with it. It's the compositing chip as mentioned above. So you trade a more streamlined implementation and flexibility for faster superAA.

 

[OpenGL guy]

well ati def. has the performance advantage, but nvidia does better for alpha textures.. check out the trees in the HL2 sshots.

I dunno, I looked at them and I think the ATI shot looks better. Compare:
ATI 14x
NVIDIA 16x

The wires on the NVIDIA shot look overly thickened. Lack of gamma correction?

 

[Razor1]

Hmm dont' think so, ATi's shot you are missing bunching of grass too. well not missing just not very visable.

 

[OpenGL guy]

Hmm dont' think so, ATi's shot you are missing bunching of grass too. well not missing just not very visable.

I suspect the draw distance is not set the same. On the NVIDIA shot, there's a missing shadow as well.

 

[Apple740]

I dunno, I looked at them and I think the ATI shot looks better. Compare:
ATI 14x
NVIDIA 16x

The wires on the NVIDIA shot look overly thickened. Lack of gamma correction?

Yeah, the power wires look better on the Ati shot but the trees in the distance look too soft i think, it's sharper on Nvidia. Not only the trees btw but also things like the brick wall and the roofs look sharper.
And why forgets Ati to render some vegetation on the ground?

 

[OpenGL guy]

Yeah, the power wires look better on the Ati shot but the trees in the distance look too soft i think, it's sharper on Nvidia. Not only the trees btw but also things like the brick wall and the roofs look sharper.

4x SSAA vs. 2x SSAA.

And why forgets Ati to render some vegetation on the ground?

See my post above. Nothing is forgotten at all, but I suspect the draw distance is not set the same.

 

[DemoCoder]

Look at the bush billboard on the left by the truck on the roof. The NVidia image shows alot more detail. The ATI image is missing lots of branches, and this is clearly not a draw distance issue, it's within the texture of the same primitive.

 

[OpenGL guy]

Look at the bush billboard on the left by the truck on the roof. The NVidia image shows alot more detail. The ATI image is missing lots of branches, and this is clearly not a draw distance issue, it's within the texture of the same primitive.

Looks overly thickened to me.

 

[Deathlike2]

The ATI image appears to be "soft" whereas NVidia's image seem "hard".

Is it just me.. or does it the G70's hardware LOD calculations a factor in any of this? I think it is a thing that is most significant between the G70 and the R520...

 

[Moloch]

I dunno, I looked at them and I think the ATI shot looks better. Compare:
ATI 14x
NVIDIA 16x

The wires on the NVIDIA shot look overly thickened. Lack of gamma correction?

Yes you guys do better wires but nvidia does better alpha textures.

 

[DemoCoder]

Looks overly thickened to me.

Maybe, but atleast there are not plainly disappearing details, like entire branches disappearing or pieces of branches disappearing. The Nvidia shot clearly shows more detail, detail that should be there. When very thin lines disappear completely (ati shot in bush), clearly, there's more aliasing than the NVidia shot, and it is not a matter of gamma correction.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

Big difference

Yes you guys do better wires but nvidia does better alpha textures.

It is surprising for me to see such large difference between ATI and NVIDIA graphics of same scene. ATI image has more smooth appearance which is nice but also many transperency texture is missing or "faint" appearance. It is a "trade-off" so maybe for different scene type different card is better no?

 

[Moloch]

It is surprising for me to see such large difference between ATI and NVIDIA graphics of same scene. ATI image has more smooth appearance which is nice but also many transperency texture is missing or "faint" appearance. It is a "trade-off" so maybe for different scene type different card is better no?

Ya looks that way.
openglguy thinks its draw distance/lod, which would make sense.

 

[Reverend]

I wish I can which is better but I can't, not without a screenshot without AA.

 

[Moloch]

I wish I can which is better but I can't, not without a screenshot without AA.

ya it would be nice to see how the powerlines are supposed to look.
I agree with OGLguy that the lines on nvidia hardware look too thick though.